Criticism:
1. Syndicalism has been criticized on many grounds. The greatest defect in this doctrine is that in spite of its elaborate plan of action, there is no clear picture of the society which the syndicalists would build after the revolution. According to Coker, “syndicalism was mainly a creed of the opposition, of aggressive action against institutions of capitalist economy and political government.
It was concerned with the methods for getting rid of existing instruments of oppression, not with the ways of administering social affairs after the success of their destructive efforts. It offered, therefore a policy primarily of revolution, not of administration.”
According to Sorel and Berth, the structure of Syndicalist society has been kept vague deliberately due to the fact that any attempt to depict the details of the future order would dispel those visionary institutions in which lay the chief power of syndicalism. But critics point out that this vagueness, instead of being a virtue, may turn out to be a weakness.
The workers may not feel enthusiastic for a cause about whose future they are absolutely in the dark. Only the certainty regarding the future is likely to inspire them and prepare them for sacrifices. It would amount to living in a fools paradise to assume that workers would take the risk of losing their livelihood by annoying their employers, without any genuine picture of plenty and happiness.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
2. It has been pointed out that the syndicalist philosophy cares only for the producers and completely ignores the interests of consumers, who are equally important part of the society. According to Dunning some organization is needed to protect the interests of consumers as well.
3. The creative vitality of society will be destroyed by the crude methods of syndicalists like sabotage, riots, destruction of industrial capital or other minor violence’s. They are bound to result in the loss of property and life.
A society emerging out of the seeds of sabotage and violence would remain a society of saboteurs who will not hesitate to sabotage the ideal society constructed by them. Only good means can achieve good ends. The sabotage and wastage would harm the society as a whole and the interests of the workers would also be adversely affected.
4. Critics point out that there is no guarantee that the General Strike will certainly succeed. The capitalists would not topple down so easily. They have the bread of the hungry workers in their hands.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The workers may not be able to achieve their ends because of their weak financial position during the period of the General Strike. The empty stomach would force the workers to submit and to be bought over. Moreover the armed might of the state will crush the strike. And the failure of the strike is bound to demoralize the workers.
5. According to Dunning, under syndicalism some favoured industries may be tempted to limit the number that might be admitted to their trade and thus maintain a monopolistic position.
It is also possible that an organization of producers under syndicalists may not introduce improved equipment and methods lest it should throw out of work some of its members. This would mean holding the hands of the clock of progress.
6. According to Maclver, to assume that the abolition of private ownership of the means of production would automatically end the exploitation of man by man, is to oversimplify the matter. He says that the power of man over man has deeper roots than economic advantage.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
7. The moral value of violence advocated by the syndicalists has been seriously questioned. Even if the workers succeed, they would not find that they have achieved all that for which they strived so hard. And before capitalism is overthrown, syndicalist action would have ruined the industry.
Such a victory would be an illusion. A new society with the lack of material and poisoned by the spirit of sabotage can never expect to usher in a noble era.
8. The theory of syndicalism is not based on any rational philosophy. It started in the form of aggressive trade unionism and later on, found an apologist in Sorel who tried to give it a philosophical tinge.
It is clear from the above criticism that syndicalism is anti-social, anti-rational and anti-democratic.